Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
A simplistic approach to this issue won't help. Let us be mature rather than moralistic.
If technology - drug, device, etc. - could help us in achieving enlightenment (provided it is harmless, of course), then why not make use of it? Unlike most religions, Buddhism does not believe in a spirit APART from matter - everything is a material process, one thing depending on another (dependent origination). So even enlightenment is a material process - it is a result of something else, be it practice or meditation (or even technology, drugs, etc.).
Hence, there is no need to be self-righteous about this - Buddhism is NOT like other religions where a PURE soul or spirit is posited, and which is divorced from matter. In such cases at least, you could argue that a material process (like taking drugs) cannot give enlightenment (which is 'spiritual accomplishment'). But in Buddhism, we don't have the spirit-matter divide.
I don't think everyone who has commented against drug use is being moralistic. Though, I will say that morals are part of maturity and deciding that someone who uses their morals to form opinions (about any topic) cannot be mature as well to be rather, well, immature. Just because someone does not agree with a particular point doesn't make them immature, lol.
A simplistic approach to this issue won't help. Let us be mature rather than moralistic.
If technology - drug, device, etc. - could help us in achieving enlightenment (provided it is harmless, of course), then why not make use of it? Unlike most religions, Buddhism does not believe in a spirit APART from matter - everything is a material process, one thing depending on another (dependent origination). So even enlightenment is a material process - it is a result of something else, be it practice or meditation (or even technology, drugs, etc.).
Hence, there is no need to be self-righteous about this - Buddhism is NOT like other religions where a PURE soul or spirit is posited, and which is divorced from matter. In such cases at least, you could argue that a material process (like taking drugs) cannot give enlightenment (which is 'spiritual accomplishment'). But in Buddhism, we don't have the spirit-matter divide.
Follow your own path and keep walking like we all are. If you think that certain drugs can induce total liberation, go and have fun with it and see where that path leads. From my experience and in my opinion, anything external to the mind cannot produce a full awakening or pure happiness. That has to be cultivated from within, everything external has potential for creating attachment, ignorance, delusion and suffering in general. Even if for example mushrooms have no medical dangers that does not mean they are not dangerous to your state of mind and practice. Just keep walking and do what you do, observe the mind as it interacts with every situation and outcome. Some of us learn the hard way and others use wiser routes.
@Danny1 If you were coming to this forum hoping to have an unbiased, open minded, intelligent discussion on the pros and cons of psychedelic use as it relates to the Buddha path of liberation, I think you will be disappointed.
As you can see many of the people responding here have their minds made up, and it is not based on direct experience. There is no reasoning, facts, or logical discussion that will open their minds as they are firmly cemented into their options. It would seem that for them all the people that say the use of psychedelics influenced them onto the Buddha path are simply dismissed because it does into fit into their strongly held beliefs on the matter.
If you are planning on experimenting with the psychedelics I would suggest that you learn from those that know what they are talking about. Ram Dass and Timothy Leary, psychology professors at Harvard University, did extensive trials and research on the effects back in the 60's. Their conclusion - Set and Setting are the 2 main determinants on the effects (good or bad, profound or mundane) you will experience. Set being your mind set. Your intention. (If you are depressed or anxious do not take them.) Setting being your surroundings. The physical environment you are in. (If in the company of judgmental cruel people do not take them.)
It does not good to discount those who DO have direct experience, however, who have commented. I don't have experience with drugs myself, but I have a sister, and a 15 year long partner who both did plenty. My sister is also Buddhist and spent plenty of time experimenting with psychedelics and other drugs. Her opinion is pretty much the same as ThailandTom's, and she has since stopped using. My ex was greatly curious about it, and I wish i could ask him for you but his love of the altered state of mind killed him. Am I biased? To a degree, yes, because while there are people who can handle drug use sparingly, many cannot and advocating (not saying the OP did this) for it's use without knowing anyone on the forum well enough to be able to say if it might be ok for them or not, is irresponsible, IMO. Biased because I have 2 children who would give anything to have their father back, but once he decided to try drugs, he was hooked and there was never any chance of going back for him.
... As you can see many of the people responding here have their minds made up, and it is not based on direct experience. There is no reasoning, facts, or logical discussion that will open their minds as they are firmly cemented into their options. ... If you are planning on experimenting with the psychedelics I would suggest that you learn from those that know what they are talking about. ...
The idea that to be able to judge whether or not something is good or bad requires personal experience is tripe.
I've never raped anyone, but I know it's bad. I've never murdered anyone, but I know it's bad.
Everything in ones life, good or bad, has resulted in the Buddhists here being Buddhist.
Lobster's criticized posting of the negative things that have brought folks to practice was brilliantly direct to the very heart of the issue.
It's not whether recreational drug use eventually leads anyone anywhere but whether it's use creates or lessens suffering.
Those with an experiential understanding of Buddhist meditation and the causes of suffering, will not be giving the responses that drug enthusiasts want to hear..
@vinlyn I am pretty sure you are not really comparing experimenting with psychedelics to the harming of others through the acts murder and rape.
As far as direct experience being unnecessary, I would suggest when it come to the mind it is all that matters.
Having seen drug problems in some of my students, yes, I am comparing drug use to murder and rape, in the context of the discussion about good versus bad.
Funny, my sister talked just like you. And died at age 50 from long-term affects of drug and alcohol abuse.
Drugs make you aware there's more to learn (for either good or bad depending on your particular experience with them). Buddhism provides a path to learn more. There are plenty of psychedelic sites out there, why not visit them? Comparing insight from the use of drugs to that of practicing Buddhism is not at all related. This is not a moralistic stance of mine, but one gained from experience. I don't claim to be right in this view, but it's mine and I'm sticking to it.
@vinlyn OK I am anti drug myself and my condolences for the loss of your sister. I have seen plenty of sad results from drug addiction too. I finally quit drinking some years ago.
But experimenting with psychedelics was the OP's inquiry. If you can't see the differences between this and serious drug addictions well there is no point to debate.
Also I am not advocating tripping to anyone here. Too risky. But at the same time I don't regret my experimentation. It was in part what lead me to the Buddha path.
As you can see many of the people responding here have their minds made up, and it is not based on direct experience. There is no reasoning, facts, or logical discussion that will open their minds as they are firmly cemented into their options.
And for many it is based on direct experience! To assume that a person is anti drug because they don't have direct experience, not very logical!
And now you see how it (this topic of discussion) always ends up. It is always assumed because one may have a more, well... "open mind" regarding LSD or Marijuana use, without the concrete, Ultimate Truth conclusion of: "These are Drugs; Drugs always = addiction; drugs always Bad", then one is advocating the use of drugs as a means to being a good meditative Buddhist or "enlightened" Buddhist....
No matter how many times one says " No, I'm not advocating or suggesting drug use for anyone as a means of Buddhist study or meditation enhancement; I'm just explaining MY experience." It always gets read as if one is pushing the use of drugs...
It always degrades into condescending (and frankly, insulting) comments about delusions of the drug addicted - and how having an open mind - or any sort of non-hysterical approach - to the use of mind expanding drugs (by the way folks, marijuana is not considered a 'psychedelic'), or stories of spiritual doors opening with the use of these substances that those telling the stories are merely 'justifying' drug use, and in denial about addiction. One can't even bring up the fact that "drugs" are very much a part of serious religious ritual and enlightenment seeking in a few cultures around the world- Oh No! No! Primitive people with primitive ideas! That's against the precepts! (As if those people should give a shit about precepts).
Sometimes it's snarkily implied that some of us trying to discuss the mere possibilities of the rational use of various substances, or their own past personal experiences, are merely addicted themselves, right here and now, even if it's been made clear that there hasn't been psychedelic drug use (and in most cases, no marijuana use) for decades.
See, we ALL know people, yes, even very close friends or loved ones - who've had addiction issues. Serious addiction issues. Many have even died as a result of those addictions. Some of us here in this forum have been open and up front about (our own or loved one's) addictions -past and present- as well.
So.... because my best friend of 40 years died a year ago thanks to the ravages of alcohol addiction, I guess I should be nothing less than an absolutely irrational zealot about 'the evils of alcohol'. Even though millions of people can and do use alcohol sparingly, in moderation, and without the backlash of addiction, I should hinge my judgement -about everyone else -solely on my friend's experience? Apparently, her addiction must cancel out everyone else's personal experience of non-addicted, light/moderate use of alcohol.
Millions of adults use marijuana, with no backlash. No interruption in daily life, no real negative consequences, and yet to some people it's as Taboo as shooting up heroin every single day on a street corner, in tattered rags, begging for handouts and dumpster diving for meals.
As for separating any sort of drug use from Buddhism and the precepts, most people here can't even have a conversation about one without the other, even if Buddhism had no influence on someone's (drug) use at the time. They are as fundamentalist as the most fundamentalist Christian Bible-thumper you'd ever run into.
I'm sure the topic will come up again... and again... and again as new people join the forum, etc. And it will (most likely) degrade into the same sort of closed minded rhetoric we see in this thread once again as well. Like I said before, the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round....
by the way folks, marijuana is not considered a 'psychedelic
Actually yes it is, make a cake with an ounce in and eat a slice or 2 and see how you feel, then come back and tell me it does not have psychedelic properties.
@MaryAnne The Buddha laid down a way out of suffering, he listed that there is suffering and all of it's forms and sources, he gave us the tools to use as we wish and for the vast majority of us in here, we have come to see anything that intoxicates us or detracts us from our path to be unwise. That being said, I have taken mushrooms a few times this year but I am not lying to myself about it. In the words of Ajahn Sumedho, sure go out and party, drink, take drugs, distract yourself with whatever you can find, but do not lie to yourself that what you are doing is not ignorant and riddled with attachment.
One can't even bring up the fact that "drugs" are very much a part of serious religious ritual and enlightenment seeking in a few cultures around the world- Oh No! No! Primitive people with primitive ideas! That's against the precepts! (As if those people should give a shit about precepts).
Do people forget this is a Buddhist forum? Discussion of Buddhist precepts is quite appropriate for a Buddhist forum. Not appropriate for weed.com or shaman.com, but for newbuddhist.com, quite appropriate!
It always degrades into condescending (and frankly, insulting) comments
As for separating any sort of drug use from Buddhism and the precepts, most people here can't even have a conversation about one without the other, even if Buddhism had no influence on someone's (drug) use at the time. They are as fundamentalist as the most fundamentalist Christian Bible-thumper you'd ever run into.
...the same sort of closed minded rhetoric we see in this thread once again as well.
It appears it does always degrade into condescending (and frankly, insulting) comments!
In my view no one was ever led to Dharma by drug use. What is a fact is that a proportion of those who were interested in exploring consciousness and its meaning do that exploration via drugs. The same people may also go on to explore consciousness as expounded in Buddhadharma. The relationship is one of co-existent factors. It is not causal.
No matter how many times one says " No, I'm not advocating or suggesting drug use for anyone as a means of Buddhist study or meditation enhancement; I'm just explaining MY experience." It always gets read as if one is pushing the use of drugs...
by the way folks, marijuana is not considered a 'psychedelic
Actually yes it is, make a cake with an ounce in and eat a slice or 2 and see how you feel, then come back and tell me it does not have psychedelic properties.
Yes, and many people can hallucinate if they drink a whole bottle of children's Benadryl. Let's keep it real Tom.... We are trying to talk about USE, not ABuse. I know you may not want to admit (or can't admit) there's a difference, but there is.
How about YOU not lie to yourself when you think because you "confess" your current drug abuse after the fact, that absolves you in some way... or gives you the right to judge others? I have been drug free from everything except marijuana (for medication) for the last 25 years. And even when I DID do drugs, all manner of drugs, BTW, I never became addicted. Ever. I won't lord that over you and your issues, don't lord your issues over me. Anyway- it's not a competition! Please don't lecture me about lying to myself; hold up the mirror to your own life, and I'll hold it up to mine..... Isn't THAT the Buddhist way?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
So many posts to comment on... The best was the person that said they know all about what psychedelics can do because they had a sister addicted to drugs. That and Lobsters comment, lol.
I'm on break however so I'll just say that without personal experience you simply have not got the slightest clue what you are talking about.
@Maryanne, don't worry so much... Many people whether they are Buddhist or not rally against what they cannot understand or fear.
Stating bias as if it applies to everyone is unbecoming, guys.
It appears it does always degrade into condescending (and frankly, insulting) comments!
I don't see any, chill and smoke more Just kidding. I myself have stopped smoking weed as a habit 4 years ago and like I stated above have only had the odd mushroom trip, but still this viol
by the way folks, marijuana is not considered a 'psychedelic
Actually yes it is, make a cake with an ounce in and eat a slice or 2 and see how you feel, then come back and tell me it does not have psychedelic properties.
Yes, and many people can hallucinate if they drink a whole bottle of children's Benadryl. Let's keep it real Tom.... We are trying to talk about USE, not ABuse. I know you may not want to admit (or can't admit) there's a difference, but there is.
How about YOU not lie to yourself when you think because you "confess" your current drug abuse after the fact, that absolves you in some way... or gives you the right to judge others? I have been drug free from everything except marijuana (for medication) for the last 25 years. And even when I DID do drugs, all manner of drugs, BTW, I never became addicted. Ever. I won't lord that over you and your issues, don't lord your issues over me. Anyway- it's not a competition! Please don't lecture me about lying to myself; hold up the mirror to your own life, and I'll hold it up to mine..... Isn't THAT the Buddhist way?
Woah there girl, I wasn't lording over you or your drug use, but chill and blaze one for us all yea, sheesh.
Go and google if weed is considered a psychedelic or not, or has psychedelic properties. By psychedelic I do not refer to simply hallucinating, if that is all you ever got out of psychedelics then sorry, but the headspace is what I was referring to.
Mental dependency to a drug can be problematic just as physical addiction cam. I have not lowered myself to such degradation of morals in this thread and you seem to either have not understood my words properly or are just really cranking at the moment, either way I'm out. I have given my opinions and experience which is all we can ever rely on 100%, our own experiences. Peace
One can't even bring up the fact that "drugs" are very much a part of serious religious ritual and enlightenment seeking in a few cultures around the world- Oh No! No! Primitive people with primitive ideas! That's against the precepts! (As if those people should give a shit about precepts).
Do people forget this is a Buddhist forum? Discussion of Buddhist precepts is quite appropriate for a Buddhist forum. Not appropriate for weed.com or shaman.com, but for newbuddhist.com, quite appropriate!
It always degrades into condescending (and frankly, insulting) comments
As for separating any sort of drug use from Buddhism and the precepts, most people here can't even have a conversation about one without the other, even if Buddhism had no influence on someone's (drug) use at the time. They are as fundamentalist as the most fundamentalist Christian Bible-thumper you'd ever run into.
...the same sort of closed minded rhetoric we see in this thread once again as well.
It appears it does always degrade into condescending (and frankly, insulting) comments!
If you (or anyone here) were to say: "Well, that was your experience with [insert drug here], huh? Interesting.... But you know, according to the 5th precept [insert 5th precept interpretation for the person here].... " I would not have an issue with it in any way. You are right, this IS a Buddhist forum and it's to be expected most will discuss things from that point of view - even if others might beg to discuss from a different pov, some will always stick to the Good Book of Buddhist Rules like glue. Even when people tell you they were not on the Buddhist path at the time of their experiences with drugs & spiritual awakening... some will still insist that's the ONLY way to see things - from the Buddhist pov, no matter what.
That said, there is a big difference between that (above) and "You are wrong." "You did wrong". Buddha said this! Buddha said that! You say you don't have a drug issue, well you do/did drugs -so that means you DO have drug issues. If you do/did drugs, you were most likely addicted. Addiction is bad, so you are bad.
Whenever someone comes to us and gives us any sort of 'positive spin' on their personal drug experiences, they are (vastly) more often than not dismissed, ridiculed or told they are merely deluded drug-muddled fools if they really believe what they are saying. Because there is No Way anything positive could ever come of experimenting with 'dangerous' drugs. Right?
Well, this is the kind of condescending and judgmental stuff I find closed minded. IMO- It is wrong to be dismissive and disrespectful of someone else's 'life story' they share with us. To essentially imply they're a liar, or twist their words into an exaggerated fallacy and then claim they are 'wrong' or 'befuddled' is, well, not very nice.
Some of the most educated, creative, intelligent, and well-respected people in human history (and a few even now, currently) have tried and/or used drugs with no ill effects on their minds, ambitions or eventual accomplishments. Once again, I'm not saying addictions don't happen and ruins or takes lives... we all know that can happen. But again, there is a difference between use and abuse/addiction.
@ourself -- Oh I'm not 'worried'... it's just a dreary, quiet morning here and there's not too much to distract me at the moment. I'm a talker... always have been. (sometimes that gets me in trouble, I know! LOL) But I love discussions, debates, etc. As long as they remain respectful and productive.
Just to be clear on my stance, I in now way said anyone was pushing or advocating for drug use no matter the reason, and I do not in any way believe everyone who experiments or uses will become an addict. I just have seen SO much harm come to people (short and long term...my sister stopped using years ago and still has effects of her drug use affecting her) because they got carried away in their experimenting. If someone wants to try, then it's certainly not my job to tell them not to. But *in my opinion* the risks that the use of drugs can carry aren't worth it.
As for primitive cultures, their experiences are vastly different in their rituals than someone dropping acid alone in their bedroom. They have vast experience in the proper use of the drugs they use in their rituals. If someone wants to experience such things and goes to a shaman or other experienced, taught individual then that is different than buying LSD off the street and using it at a party or whatever.
I don't discount that people have had positive experiences. But was the OP even sharing his experience? I didn't see that in his original post. I saw his having read about other experiences and questioning what might have happened if those experiences happened here. Of course not everyone who uses drugs gets addicted. But is it worth the risk? And is it worth influencing some of the young people here who struggle with meditation and other things to get them to think that maybe, possibly, this would be a way out of what they are having issues getting passed? Even though no one is advocating for it, not speaking up about the risks is pretty close to advocating. Some people are ok with it. Some are not. Neither side is wrong.
If someone says "I had this experience" then I can't really tell them that no, they didn't have that experience. I can question whether they could have had the same experience without risking causing harm to their brain and body via other methods though. We all come at any topic from our experience. Some people have had positive experiences with drug use. More power to them. Many people have seen nothing but misery come from drug use because of what it can lead to. Yes, it changes how we see the topic. That'll happen with any topic, though. Somehow who is raped has a different perspective than someone who has not. Someone who has eaten roaches has a different perspective than someone who has not. Someone who is homeless has a different perspective than someone who is not. And so on.
Just for the record, Mary Anne, when I have suggested a couple of times that the monkhood be modernized slightly (such as more comfortable monk's clothing and modifying the hours that eating is allowed), my suggestions have been treated with equal disdain. So it is not a one topic attitude applied only toward drug use.
I also think about when I was a school principal and a student would get sent to my office for using the word "fuck". I wasn't as foolish as the previous principal who would say to the students stupid things like, "Adults never use that word." Heck, I use it myself on occasion. But what I would say is, "There's a time and place for all kinds of language, but this school is not the time and place. Maybe out playing basketball with your friends, it's okay. But not here. Period." And maybe that's what it's like on this website. There are forums out there that advocate all sorts of drug and sexual escapades, overthrow of the US, subversive militias operating overseas, Muslim extremism, etc. You name the topic. But it appears that most of the members of this forum do not want to promote any kind of drug use on this religious forum. So, when the topic comes up,
My other question -- for someone, not necessarily you -- is why people treat the abuse of alcohol so differently from the abuse of drugs. Including right here on this forum, we have had people involved in and not involved in alcohol abuse say how important it is for alcoholics to be able to say, "I am an alcoholic" for the rest of their lives. But, if they were a significant user of drugs, they should not say, "I am a drug abuser" once they have stopped. I ask that not to make a point. I ask it as a question, because in my family and among my friends and associates, I have had both alcohol and drug abusers, and while I have known alcohol and drug abusers who have both permanently stopped using their preferred substances, most I have known have, from time to time, "fallen off either wagon". I am open to be educated on this particular topic.
@vinlyn Answering only from my own experiences with drug addicted friends, family members, or people I've met (with that problem) in the medical field I worked in; I have heard nearly all of them say "I'm a drug addict..." or "I'm a substance abuser..." and consider themselves one -forever- whether still actively partaking in drugs or not.
I've also been to a few NA meetings with friends, and everyone there acknowledged they were (still) substance or drug abusers; even after being clean a long time. I think it's perfectly accurate to describe oneself as a drug addict or substance abuser forever, because it is something that one can never safely indulge in without triggering that addiction again. Unless there are new studies to contradict this, that has always been the clinical definition of 'addiction' or 'addict', no?
Again, speaking only for myself and my own experiences, as I said, I've never developed an addiction to any substance- drugs or alcohol - even though I spent a couple of decades happily and very frequently indulging in both. And no, I'm not merely fooling myself (should anyone think that), I honestly never had an issue with stopping any substance I had done, even numerous times, nor had any withdrawal issues physically or mentally. I guess I'm just one of those (rare? I don't know...) people who does not have "the addiction gene" or whatever you want to call it. I even quit smoking cigarettes cold turkey more than 13 years ago. Just got up one day and decided No More Cigs. I was smoking for more than 28 yrs at that point... up to a pack a day. I enjoyed smoking, and to be deadly honest, I still miss it; but I don't smoke anymore
Of course this does NOT make me better / superior to anyone else! But I do absolutely fit the bill as a dyed-in-the-wool example of someone/anyone who has done drugs, a LOT of drugs, for a lot of years, and did not become addicted, addle-brained or a useless shell of a person. And call it ego, call it defensive, but whatever - it really burns my biscuits to be called an addict, a fool, addle-brained, or labeled somehow "less Buddhist" for the simple reason I (freely and unabashedly) admit I've done drugs in the past, learned a lot from each experience, don't regret one single minute of it, and don't tow the PC anti-drugs-all-the-time hard line. I am none of those things and even though some people will insist on projecting that BS onto me, (not saying You, Vinlyn) does not mean I have to accept it. I never will, because it's not true.
@Karasti For the record, I never found your posts on this topic -or any other that I can think of - to be judgmental or overbearing in any way, even when we don't agree. I would never consider you a "Buddhist Fundie" or Buddhist Book Thumper...
Thanks for responding, Mary Anne. I always thought the "I am (still)..." to be about the psychology of addiction, rather than any specific substance.
You sound a little like my father. He, too, quit a 5-pack a day smoking habit that he had had over 30+ years cold turkey. And, when in the military, whenever he would move to a new base or position, he would cold turkey stop drinking for 90 days...and he was a quart of Black Velvet a day man (at home...before he would go out and make the rounds). Of course, once he quit alcohol and smoking forever, again cold turkey, it was after a major heart attack and stroke, and the doctor told him point blank, "You drink, you die. Period." Nevertheless, I give him lots of credit. 25 years later, when he realized he was finally nearing the end, he did resume smoking, but never resumed drinking.
I give him lots of credit too, @Vinlyn. I really believe alcohol is one of THE worst addictions to overcome! My hubs has been sober for 17 yrs now after more than 30 yrs of daily drinking and two other failed attempts at sobriety. Even went through a 28-day in-house rehab once, and started drinking again less than 2 months afterwards. Rough, rough road...
My friend was told "You Drink-You Die" too. She couldn't stop. Less than 5 yrs after the first doctor told her that- she was dead. Broke my heart to see that happen to her. She was a truly lovely person with a heart of gold... I miss her very very much.
So I completely understand and have experienced what addictions can do to people. Absolutely. Which is why I would never EVER encourage anyone to drink or do drugs... but on the other hand when they DO, it's their decision. I can't just condemn people out of hand because they choose to smoke a little weed, try a psychedelic here or there, or have a few beers on the weekend. Hopefully they will be able to realize when/if it's becoming a problem, and stop before it does become one. (and I'm living proof that it doesn't always become one) But ultimately, they are in charge of their own lives. I try not to judge....
It's funny, my ex who was from the time he was about 16 (though I didn't know until much later) an alcoholic and a drug abuser, and a cigarette smoker. He had such an addictive personality (or genes, or whatever) that he got addicted to almost anything. He had a lot he felt the need to escape from, and he used drugs, beer, and the internet and music even to do it. He knew he was an alcoholic. But once he stopped using illicit drugs, even though he dr shopped and abused prescription drugs (ADD meds and pain killers mostly) like crazy, he never, ever considered himself to even have a problem with drugs, much less be a drug addict. He actually quit smoking cold turkey with no problem, too. But he had plenty of other addictions to cover it up. So in HIS case, he was willing to admit he was an alcoholic but never a drug addict/abuser.
@MaryAnne thanks, that's good to know! I sometimes feel strongly about something and worry I come across as someone I'm really not. I honestly don't have a problem with people who want to recreationally use drugs. It's their life. It's just a subject that strikes me because of my ex, and because 3 out of my 4 grandparents were alcoholics, as are several other members of my family. Some addicted to drinking, some to gambling, some to drugs, and several of them have died as a direct result of the activities. So when it comes to me, and my kids especially I take a hard stance because there IS so much risk of addiction in our genetics. Even experimenting or brief recreational use can have dire effects on their lives, and while I do work to get out from under that fear that one or both of my older kids will take the same path as their dad, it's still there and I'm sure it comes out in these discussions.
Sheesh, so many solid views! If we consider externally caused changes of mental states a hindrance to Buddhism, then we must include caffeine, psychiatric medications, nicotine, breathing too quickly, standing up too quickly.
Avoiding intoxication looks different to different people, best not to take heavy handed stances... they only create ripples in our minds. Unless we're omniscient of course, then one becomes adept at prescribing action.
What I see in people attempting to use drugs specifically for spiritual development is a lack of patience. Impatience can push us into unstable actions, where mindfulness collapses. We are in pain, so we pop some pills. We deal with the pain, but not the cause. We wish for insight to escape the pain of delusion, so we take drugs. Fine, whatever... but eventually we form resistance to the medication and have never found the cause. For instance, I get headaches when I do not hydrate. I might take some acetaminophen for the pain, but then also drink water. If you properly tend the conditions, there isn't a cause for drugs. Said differently, if you stabilize a meditation practice, the cause to seek insight through drugs simply vanishes... like abandoning crutches when you realize its easier to walk without them.
The heavy mindedness is startling, friends. Metta to all of us!
Honestly I prefer for myself a view that includes those types of things as far as the precepts go. That doesn't mean I apply them to everyone else, it's just based on my experiences and things I struggle with and need to let go of. I personally think caffeine should be included. How many people "need" it to wake up, or avoid headaches and other withdrawl symptoms? Many, many people are addicted to caffeine, but because we don't see it as having bad effects on us it's just socially acceptable. No one is going to lose their job because they are addicted to 4 cups of coffee in the morning. But as far as Buddhism goes it seems to me that it's just as much of a problem as far as how it affects our minds. I'm not claiming I manage the precepts perfectly by any means. I don't. It's just how I see the ideal for myself.
I think pain just has too many causes and variations to be included, as well as medications that are necessary to function. My son's brain is affected by his diabetes. He takes insulin to correct the problem but he still has highs and lows that affect his how brain functions. There is no fixing it. I had a knee injury that resulted in cartilage being removed from my knee. That is what causes the occasional pain and swelling. Yes, I can take medication to feel better, though it's rare it's bad enough to need meditation (advil in my case) but knowing what the cause is, in that case, does nothing whatsoever to alleviate the symptoms. There is nothing that can be done about the missing cartilage. I can only manage the symptoms as they occur. I do agree that we should try to figure out the causes when we can and manage the root cause rather than the symptoms. I think that goes a very long ways in taking proper care of our bodies and minds. But it's not always possible.
Honestly I prefer for myself a view that includes those types of things as far as the precepts go. That doesn't mean I apply them to everyone else, it's just based on my experiences and things I struggle with and need to let go of. I personally think caffeine should be included. How many people "need" it to wake up, or avoid headaches and other withdrawl symptoms? Many, many people are addicted to caffeine, but because we don't see it as having bad effects on us it's just socially acceptable. No one is going to lose their job because they are addicted to 4 cups of coffee in the morning. But as far as Buddhism goes it seems to me that it's just as much of a problem as far as how it affects our minds. I'm not claiming I manage the precepts perfectly by any means. I don't. It's just how I see the ideal for myself.
...
I remember when I was a young teacher, I would see some of my colleagues drinking a lot of Cokes in the morning...obviously for the caffeine. I thought they were crazy. But, as time passed, I found myself doing it more and more...it really picked me up. I got to the point of 2 Cokes each morning, and another 1 or 2 in the afternoon.
Although I didn't realize it at the time, it was helping to fuel my high blood pressure and giving me mini-migraines fairly frequently. When I retired, I quit caffeinated drinks, and -- although I know there are other factors that have played a role -- my mini-migraines are far less frequent and I have been able to reduce my primary blood pressure medication by 75%, and virtually never take my supplementary blood pressure medicine.
I'm not sure I'd include it under the Precepts, since I think the affect of caffeine on people is not what the Precept is talking about. But we would all be better off without so much caffeine.
I tend to agree, but when I look at other things like tv or music, I know it has an impact on me. And has a greater impact on other people (and less so on others). I do think there are people who are affected enough by caffeine that it reduces their mindfulness. It impacts my ability to meditate quite a lot, as does even taking vitamin B before I meditate. So, for me, taken at certain times things definitely affect my ability to meditate and to remain mindful. And I often wonder what life would be like, what our fears would still be if we did not have cable TV and satellite radio and the internet. I'm not saying we should do away with those things, lol, it's just something I pondor. If all we had access to was our immediate local news for our neighborhood, would we have the fears and anxieties we do about the rest of the world? Probably not, and I do think all that fear and anxiety from watching global news and such does affect us.
My rule of thumb: if a substance can affect my driving behind the wheel, then it will likely affect my mindfulness as well. Therein lies the difference (as far as my own practice goes) between alcohol/LSD/pot and chocolate/coffee/tea LSD would affect my mental judgment, a cup of tea (five cups of tea even!) does not.
(Actually, I avoid coffee because the caffeine is so high in it that my heart flutters and makes me sick to my stomach. Tea has much less caffeine in it and never affects me the same way.)
I can If sick, I will take medication that certainly could affect me in that way, but I use it temporarily until the illness has passed. And even then I try to avoid them if I can.
I've not done drugs, but I've been drunk a handful of times, and I did not find the experience pleasant (and I don't mean the hangover the next day either). I totally support the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
If you can't drive mindfully with mind-altering substances, I don't see how it can have much benefit in any activity within the context of Buddhist practice. Drugs haven't changed all that much since the year 600 BCE. Shakyamuni Buddha had good reason to list intoxication along with four other activities he deemed not beneficial for practice. It may have other benefits, but not within the context of Buddhist practice where mindfulness and concentration play such a vital role.
Without mindfulness, can we really call it practice? Sounds more like a break from practice to me. And if people want to take a break from practice, that choice belongs entirely to them. Why bother trying to make it compatible with Buddhist practice; why try to justify its use? Just do it, or don't.
Oh now just hold on a moment riverflow!. Are you intimating that some mind altering substances are somehow not compatible with ones efforts to not fiddle with phenomena input? I'm pretty sure Buddhism won't sully anyones noble path of drug intoxication unless they allow it to.
Nothing but the truth, they are for the weak minded and self-indulgent.
And there we have yet another example of Buddhist compassion...... :: SMH ::
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
"Emily often uses psychedelics, and that's that's why I want her to babysit my infant daughter."
"Bill is a pothead, so he's the perfect English teacher I want for my son." (I actually have a story about that one).
"I think it's okay for the pilot of the 747 I'll be flying on to Hawaii to use amphetamines."
"I want my teenaged daughter to use ecstasy at her next party."
Do you drink at all?
Insert drinking into any of those and we get the same message.
It's weird that you had one about weed because out of the drugs you mentioned, weed is the only one that nobody has ever died from overdosing on.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Honestly I prefer for myself a view that includes those types of things as far as the precepts go. That doesn't mean I apply them to everyone else, it's just based on my experiences and things I struggle with and need to let go of. I personally think caffeine should be included. How many people "need" it to wake up, or avoid headaches and other withdrawl symptoms? Many, many people are addicted to caffeine, but because we don't see it as having bad effects on us it's just socially acceptable. No one is going to lose their job because they are addicted to 4 cups of coffee in the morning. But as far as Buddhism goes it seems to me that it's just as much of a problem as far as how it affects our minds. I'm not claiming I manage the precepts perfectly by any means. I don't. It's just how I see the ideal for myself.
I think pain just has too many causes and variations to be included, as well as medications that are necessary to function. My son's brain is affected by his diabetes. He takes insulin to correct the problem but he still has highs and lows that affect his how brain functions. There is no fixing it. I had a knee injury that resulted in cartilage being removed from my knee. That is what causes the occasional pain and swelling. Yes, I can take medication to feel better, though it's rare it's bad enough to need meditation (advil in my case) but knowing what the cause is, in that case, does nothing whatsoever to alleviate the symptoms. There is nothing that can be done about the missing cartilage. I can only manage the symptoms as they occur. I do agree that we should try to figure out the causes when we can and manage the root cause rather than the symptoms. I think that goes a very long ways in taking proper care of our bodies and minds. But it's not always possible.
Great post, thank you. Being in the healthcare field I couldn't agree more.
A lot of people also lie. That too is one of the precepts. My ex girlfriend/friend once told me she had bone cancer and me being gullible believed her for awhile. That is a lie. I don't say she is not Buddhist or a bad person.
But the precepts are there for a reason. You are not required to take precepts to call yourself Buddhist. I drink a six-pack every week from grocery shopping. Sometimes I drink all six in one night, but then my supply is gone for the week. I don't think it makes much difference in my practice because I have so many psychiatric issues and meds I am on and those affect my wakefulness and joyful effort right off the bat. I still call myself a Buddhist.
So with lying we can all certainly remember a time lying for each of us. But that is not the BEST training rule of the mind. Not lying does not award you any kudos it just makes mind training easier. Many people actually prefer you tell them 'sweet little lies'. In my eyes it's a case of (both lying and drinking) a case of 'best practice' versus 'such as it is and good enough'.
Does this make sense? 1. you can still be a Buddhist without precepts 2. the precepts are there for a reason and you can benefit from them 3. despite not following the precepts you can still have an awesome awareness practice.
4. is that you could have a better practice without. ~Milerapa came to the conclusion that Marpa was not going to be able to further help his practice so he went it alone because he was desperate to become a Buddha due to having practiced black magic and killed family members. He succeeded in becoming a Buddha. Marpa said that Milarepa did the right thing for himself, but of course he claimed that if Milarepa had stayed with'm then he would have been enlightened sooner.
"Emily often uses psychedelics, and that's that's why I want her to babysit my infant daughter."
"Bill is a pothead, so he's the perfect English teacher I want for my son." (I actually have a story about that one).
"I think it's okay for the pilot of the 747 I'll be flying on to Hawaii to use amphetamines."
"I want my teenaged daughter to use ecstasy at her next party."
Do you drink at all?
Insert drinking into any of those and we get the same message.
It's weird that you had one about weed because out of the drugs you mentioned, weed is the only one that nobody has ever died from overdosing on.
When I was 18 I started social drinking, then stopped 100% at around age 24...and I'm, 63 now. So, sorry, your response doesn't hold water (or alcohol) with me.
But your last sentence sort of made a point I'm trying to make obliquely. The arguments (even for weed) almost always center around the idea of it isn't any worse than _____. Not that it's good for you or a positive influence on American culture or __________.
... 1. you can still be a Buddhist without precepts ...
I hold the 5 Precepts right up there with the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path.
For me, there is room for interpretation with those 3 pillars of Buddhism.
But, if you're going to simply ignore a primary pillar of Buddhism, then what's the point of saying you're Buddhist. You could still say that you follow many principles of Buddhism.
To me it would be about the same as saying, "I'm a Christian but I dismiss the Ten Commandments." I don't care if you say it...that's your choice...but what's the point?
@vinlyn. To me it's not important what you call yourself. If there is someone for whom that is important I don't want to kick sand in their faces. Let them get a taste and follow the path. Eventually in some life (or not) they will have the right conditions to start following them all.
I don't hold the five precepts with the Aryan eightfold path or the four Aryan truths. The latter are supremely advanced practices that we only have a taste as training rules. In terms of being training rules they would be equal to the precepts. But the Aryan right view is a very advanced realization.
So now assuming neither you nor I are of the Aryan view are you still so cautious about calling yourself a Buddhist? Since we are presumably not of the Aryan view the billions of Buddhists would have to be thousands.
A Buddhist is in the context of ahimsa. If the being benefits from calling themselves as such with greater faith then I sanction the use of 'Buddhist'. In the end when prajnaparamita is realized as in the diamond and heart sutra there is no 'ist' and no 'ism'..no beings no flowers no eye no path...
That last gives a flavor of the four noble truths. What is the cause of suffering if not holding onto an 'ism'...
By not holding onto an ism we also avoid taking it away from a being who is receiving nutrition from their new (or old) practice.
Well that's my 2 pennies. Excuse me if I said anything false or course.
I also have to add here that all religions, in my view, have two very different functions. One function is for the individual. The other is for the society.
It is hard to find someone without an addiction to something. Choosing specific addictions to question who is a Buddhist or who isn't, is self righteous twaddle..
On the other hand having Buddhists promote perceptual breakages with psycho babble to make themselves feel better about their addictions is just as delusive.
Somewhere in between is the acceptance that we are no better or worse than anyone else and the manner in which we all try to address the difficulties with our respective addictions is really what the practice is..
Comments
If technology - drug, device, etc. - could help us in achieving enlightenment (provided it is harmless, of course), then why not make use of it? Unlike most religions, Buddhism does not believe in a spirit APART from matter - everything is a material process, one thing depending on another (dependent origination). So even enlightenment is a material process - it is a result of something else, be it practice or meditation (or even technology, drugs, etc.).
Hence, there is no need to be self-righteous about this - Buddhism is NOT like other religions where a PURE soul or spirit is posited, and which is divorced from matter. In such cases at least, you could argue that a material process (like taking drugs) cannot give enlightenment (which is 'spiritual accomplishment'). But in Buddhism, we don't have the spirit-matter divide.
Morals and morality is very important!
And I do have references
As you can see many of the people responding here have their minds made up, and it is not based on direct experience. There is no reasoning, facts, or logical discussion that will open their minds as they are firmly cemented into their options. It would seem that for them all the people that say the use of psychedelics influenced them onto the Buddha path are simply dismissed because it does into fit into their strongly held beliefs on the matter.
If you are planning on experimenting with the psychedelics I would suggest that you learn from those that know what they are talking about. Ram Dass and Timothy Leary, psychology professors at Harvard University, did extensive trials and research on the effects back in the 60's.
Their conclusion - Set and Setting are the 2 main determinants on the effects (good or bad, profound or mundane) you will experience.
Set being your mind set. Your intention. (If you are depressed or anxious do not take them.)
Setting being your surroundings. The physical environment you are in. (If in the company of judgmental cruel people do not take them.)
I've never raped anyone, but I know it's bad.
I've never murdered anyone, but I know it's bad.
Lobster's criticized posting of the negative things that have brought folks to practice was brilliantly direct to the very heart of the issue.
It's not whether recreational drug use eventually leads anyone anywhere but whether it's use creates or lessens suffering.
Those with an experiential understanding of Buddhist meditation and the causes of suffering, will not be giving the responses that drug enthusiasts want to hear..
I am pretty sure you are not really comparing experimenting with psychedelics to the harming of others through the acts murder and rape.
As far as direct experience being unnecessary, I would suggest when it come to the mind it is all that matters.
Funny, my sister talked just like you. And died at age 50 from long-term affects of drug and alcohol abuse.
Buddhism provides a path to learn more.
There are plenty of psychedelic sites out there, why not visit them?
Comparing insight from the use of drugs to that of practicing Buddhism is not at all related.
This is not a moralistic stance of mine, but one gained from experience.
I don't claim to be right in this view, but it's mine and I'm sticking to it.
OK I am anti drug myself and my condolences for the loss of your sister. I have seen plenty of sad results from drug addiction too. I finally quit drinking some years ago.
But experimenting with psychedelics was the OP's inquiry. If you can't see the differences between this and serious drug addictions well there is no point to debate.
Also I am not advocating tripping to anyone here. Too risky. But at the same time I don't regret my experimentation. It was in part what lead me to the Buddha path.
Nothing more to add.
And now you see how it (this topic of discussion) always ends up. It is always assumed because one may have a more, well... "open mind" regarding LSD or Marijuana use, without the concrete, Ultimate Truth conclusion of: "These are Drugs; Drugs always = addiction; drugs always Bad", then one is advocating the use of drugs as a means to being a good meditative Buddhist or "enlightened" Buddhist....
No matter how many times one says " No, I'm not advocating or suggesting drug use for anyone as a means of Buddhist study or meditation enhancement; I'm just explaining MY experience." It always gets read as if one is pushing the use of drugs...
It always degrades into condescending (and frankly, insulting) comments about delusions of the drug addicted - and how having an open mind - or any sort of non-hysterical approach - to the use of mind expanding drugs (by the way folks, marijuana is not considered a 'psychedelic'), or stories of spiritual doors opening with the use of these substances that those telling the stories are merely 'justifying' drug use, and in denial about addiction.
One can't even bring up the fact that "drugs" are very much a part of serious religious ritual and enlightenment seeking in a few cultures around the world- Oh No! No! Primitive people with primitive ideas! That's against the precepts! (As if those people should give a shit about precepts).
Sometimes it's snarkily implied that some of us trying to discuss the mere possibilities of the rational use of various substances, or their own past personal experiences, are merely addicted themselves, right here and now, even if it's been made clear that there hasn't been psychedelic drug use (and in most cases, no marijuana use) for decades.
See, we ALL know people, yes, even very close friends or loved ones - who've had addiction issues. Serious addiction issues. Many have even died as a result of those addictions. Some of us here in this forum have been open and up front about (our own or loved one's) addictions -past and present- as well.
So.... because my best friend of 40 years died a year ago thanks to the ravages of alcohol addiction, I guess I should be nothing less than an absolutely irrational zealot about 'the evils of alcohol'.
Even though millions of people can and do use alcohol sparingly, in moderation, and without the backlash of addiction, I should hinge my judgement -about everyone else -solely on my friend's experience? Apparently, her addiction must cancel out everyone else's personal experience of non-addicted, light/moderate use of alcohol.
Millions of adults use marijuana, with no backlash. No interruption in daily life, no real negative consequences, and yet to some people it's as Taboo as shooting up heroin every single day on a street corner, in tattered rags, begging for handouts and dumpster diving for meals.
As for separating any sort of drug use from Buddhism and the precepts, most people here can't even have a conversation about one without the other, even if Buddhism had no influence on someone's (drug) use at the time.
They are as fundamentalist as the most fundamentalist Christian Bible-thumper you'd ever run into.
I'm sure the topic will come up again... and again... and again as new people join the forum, etc. And it will (most likely) degrade into the same sort of closed minded rhetoric we see in this thread once again as well. Like I said before, the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round....
Actually yes it is, make a cake with an ounce in and eat a slice or 2 and see how you feel, then come back and tell me it does not have psychedelic properties.
@MaryAnne The Buddha laid down a way out of suffering, he listed that there is suffering and all of it's forms and sources, he gave us the tools to use as we wish and for the vast majority of us in here, we have come to see anything that intoxicates us or detracts us from our path to be unwise. That being said, I have taken mushrooms a few times this year but I am not lying to myself about it. In the words of Ajahn Sumedho, sure go out and party, drink, take drugs, distract yourself with whatever you can find, but do not lie to yourself that what you are doing is not ignorant and riddled with attachment.
What is a fact is that a proportion of those who were interested in exploring consciousness and its meaning do that exploration via drugs. The same people may also go on to explore consciousness as expounded in Buddhadharma. The relationship is one of co-existent factors. It is not causal.
How about YOU not lie to yourself when you think because you "confess" your current drug abuse after the fact, that absolves you in some way... or gives you the right to judge others?
I have been drug free from everything except marijuana (for medication) for the last 25 years. And even when I DID do drugs, all manner of drugs, BTW, I never became addicted. Ever. I won't lord that over you and your issues, don't lord your issues over me. Anyway- it's not a competition! Please don't lecture me about lying to myself; hold up the mirror to your own life, and I'll hold it up to mine..... Isn't THAT the Buddhist way?
I'm on break however so I'll just say that without personal experience you simply have not got the slightest clue what you are talking about.
@Maryanne, don't worry so much... Many people whether they are Buddhist or not rally against what they cannot understand or fear.
Stating bias as if it applies to everyone is unbecoming, guys.
Obviously humans don't need drugs to be deluded.
I don't see any, chill and smoke more
Go and google if weed is considered a psychedelic or not, or has psychedelic properties. By psychedelic I do not refer to simply hallucinating, if that is all you ever got out of psychedelics then sorry, but the headspace is what I was referring to.
Mental dependency to a drug can be problematic just as physical addiction cam. I have not lowered myself to such degradation of morals in this thread and you seem to either have not understood my words properly or are just really cranking at the moment, either way I'm out. I have given my opinions and experience which is all we can ever rely on 100%, our own experiences.
Peace
@Seeker242
If you (or anyone here) were to say:
"Well, that was your experience with [insert drug here], huh? Interesting.... But you know, according to the 5th precept [insert 5th precept interpretation for the person here].... "
I would not have an issue with it in any way. You are right, this IS a Buddhist forum and it's to be expected most will discuss things from that point of view - even if others might beg to discuss from a different pov, some will always stick to the Good Book of Buddhist Rules like glue. Even when people tell you they were not on the Buddhist path at the time of their experiences with drugs & spiritual awakening... some will still insist that's the ONLY way to see things - from the Buddhist pov, no matter what.
That said, there is a big difference between that (above) and "You are wrong." "You did wrong". Buddha said this! Buddha said that! You say you don't have a drug issue, well you do/did drugs -so that means you DO have drug issues. If you do/did drugs, you were most likely addicted. Addiction is bad, so you are bad.
Whenever someone comes to us and gives us any sort of 'positive spin' on their personal drug experiences, they are (vastly) more often than not dismissed, ridiculed or told they are merely deluded drug-muddled fools if they really believe what they are saying. Because there is No Way anything positive could ever come of experimenting with 'dangerous' drugs. Right?
Well, this is the kind of condescending and judgmental stuff I find closed minded.
IMO- It is wrong to be dismissive and disrespectful of someone else's 'life story' they share with us. To essentially imply they're a liar, or twist their words into an exaggerated fallacy and then claim they are 'wrong' or 'befuddled' is, well, not very nice.
Some of the most educated, creative, intelligent, and well-respected people in human history (and a few even now, currently) have tried and/or used drugs with no ill effects on their minds, ambitions or eventual accomplishments.
Once again, I'm not saying addictions don't happen and ruins or takes lives... we all know that can happen. But again, there is a difference between use and abuse/addiction.
@ourself -- Oh I'm not 'worried'... it's just a dreary, quiet morning here and there's not too much to distract me at the moment. I'm a talker... always have been. (sometimes that gets me in trouble, I know! LOL)
But I love discussions, debates, etc. As long as they remain respectful and productive.
As for primitive cultures, their experiences are vastly different in their rituals than someone dropping acid alone in their bedroom. They have vast experience in the proper use of the drugs they use in their rituals. If someone wants to experience such things and goes to a shaman or other experienced, taught individual then that is different than buying LSD off the street and using it at a party or whatever.
I don't discount that people have had positive experiences. But was the OP even sharing his experience? I didn't see that in his original post. I saw his having read about other experiences and questioning what might have happened if those experiences happened here. Of course not everyone who uses drugs gets addicted. But is it worth the risk? And is it worth influencing some of the young people here who struggle with meditation and other things to get them to think that maybe, possibly, this would be a way out of what they are having issues getting passed? Even though no one is advocating for it, not speaking up about the risks is pretty close to advocating. Some people are ok with it. Some are not. Neither side is wrong.
If someone says "I had this experience" then I can't really tell them that no, they didn't have that experience. I can question whether they could have had the same experience without risking causing harm to their brain and body via other methods though. We all come at any topic from our experience. Some people have had positive experiences with drug use. More power to them. Many people have seen nothing but misery come from drug use because of what it can lead to. Yes, it changes how we see the topic. That'll happen with any topic, though. Somehow who is raped has a different perspective than someone who has not. Someone who has eaten roaches has a different perspective than someone who has not. Someone who is homeless has a different perspective than someone who is not. And so on.
I also think about when I was a school principal and a student would get sent to my office for using the word "fuck". I wasn't as foolish as the previous principal who would say to the students stupid things like, "Adults never use that word." Heck, I use it myself on occasion. But what I would say is, "There's a time and place for all kinds of language, but this school is not the time and place. Maybe out playing basketball with your friends, it's okay. But not here. Period." And maybe that's what it's like on this website. There are forums out there that advocate all sorts of drug and sexual escapades, overthrow of the US, subversive militias operating overseas, Muslim extremism, etc. You name the topic. But it appears that most of the members of this forum do not want to promote any kind of drug use on this religious forum. So, when the topic comes up,
My other question -- for someone, not necessarily you -- is why people treat the abuse of alcohol so differently from the abuse of drugs. Including right here on this forum, we have had people involved in and not involved in alcohol abuse say how important it is for alcoholics to be able to say, "I am an alcoholic" for the rest of their lives. But, if they were a significant user of drugs, they should not say, "I am a drug abuser" once they have stopped. I ask that not to make a point. I ask it as a question, because in my family and among my friends and associates, I have had both alcohol and drug abusers, and while I have known alcohol and drug abusers who have both permanently stopped using their preferred substances, most I have known have, from time to time, "fallen off either wagon". I am open to be educated on this particular topic.
Answering only from my own experiences with drug addicted friends, family members, or people I've met (with that problem) in the medical field I worked in; I have heard nearly all of them say "I'm a drug addict..." or "I'm a substance abuser..." and consider themselves one -forever- whether still actively partaking in drugs or not.
I've also been to a few NA meetings with friends, and everyone there acknowledged they were (still) substance or drug abusers; even after being clean a long time. I think it's perfectly accurate to describe oneself as a drug addict or substance abuser forever, because it is something that one can never safely indulge in without triggering that addiction again. Unless there are new studies to contradict this, that has always been the clinical definition of 'addiction' or 'addict', no?
Again, speaking only for myself and my own experiences, as I said, I've never developed an addiction to any substance- drugs or alcohol - even though I spent a couple of decades happily and very frequently indulging in both. And no, I'm not merely fooling myself (should anyone think that), I honestly never had an issue with stopping any substance I had done, even numerous times, nor had any withdrawal issues physically or mentally.
I guess I'm just one of those (rare? I don't know...) people who does not have "the addiction gene" or whatever you want to call it. I even quit smoking cigarettes cold turkey more than 13 years ago. Just got up one day and decided No More Cigs. I was smoking for more than 28 yrs at that point... up to a pack a day. I enjoyed smoking, and to be deadly honest, I still miss it; but I don't smoke anymore
Of course this does NOT make me better / superior to anyone else!
But I do absolutely fit the bill as a dyed-in-the-wool example of someone/anyone who has done drugs, a LOT of drugs, for a lot of years, and did not become addicted, addle-brained or a useless shell of a person.
And call it ego, call it defensive, but whatever - it really burns my biscuits to be called an addict, a fool, addle-brained, or labeled somehow "less Buddhist" for the simple reason I (freely and unabashedly) admit I've done drugs in the past, learned a lot from each experience, don't regret one single minute of it, and don't tow the PC anti-drugs-all-the-time hard line.
I am none of those things and even though some people will insist on projecting that BS onto me, (not saying You, Vinlyn) does not mean I have to accept it. I never will, because it's not true.
@Karasti
For the record, I never found your posts on this topic -or any other that I can think of - to be judgmental or overbearing in any way, even when we don't agree. I would never consider you a "Buddhist Fundie" or Buddhist Book Thumper...
You sound a little like my father. He, too, quit a 5-pack a day smoking habit that he had had over 30+ years cold turkey. And, when in the military, whenever he would move to a new base or position, he would cold turkey stop drinking for 90 days...and he was a quart of Black Velvet a day man (at home...before he would go out and make the rounds). Of course, once he quit alcohol and smoking forever, again cold turkey, it was after a major heart attack and stroke, and the doctor told him point blank, "You drink, you die. Period." Nevertheless, I give him lots of credit. 25 years later, when he realized he was finally nearing the end, he did resume smoking, but never resumed drinking.
My friend was told "You Drink-You Die" too. She couldn't stop. Less than 5 yrs after the first doctor told her that- she was dead. Broke my heart to see that happen to her. She was a truly lovely person with a heart of gold... I miss her very very much.
So I completely understand and have experienced what addictions can do to people. Absolutely. Which is why I would never EVER encourage anyone to drink or do drugs... but on the other hand when they DO, it's their decision. I can't just condemn people out of hand because they choose to smoke a little weed, try a psychedelic here or there, or have a few beers on the weekend.
Hopefully they will be able to realize when/if it's becoming a problem, and stop before it does become one. (and I'm living proof that it doesn't always become one) But ultimately, they are in charge of their own lives. I try not to judge....
@MaryAnne thanks, that's good to know! I sometimes feel strongly about something and worry I come across as someone I'm really not. I honestly don't have a problem with people who want to recreationally use drugs. It's their life. It's just a subject that strikes me because of my ex, and because 3 out of my 4 grandparents were alcoholics, as are several other members of my family. Some addicted to drinking, some to gambling, some to drugs, and several of them have died as a direct result of the activities. So when it comes to me, and my kids especially I take a hard stance because there IS so much risk of addiction in our genetics. Even experimenting or brief recreational use can have dire effects on their lives, and while I do work to get out from under that fear that one or both of my older kids will take the same path as their dad, it's still there and I'm sure it comes out in these discussions.
Avoiding intoxication looks different to different people, best not to take heavy handed stances... they only create ripples in our minds. Unless we're omniscient of course, then one becomes adept at prescribing action.
What I see in people attempting to use drugs specifically for spiritual development is a lack of patience. Impatience can push us into unstable actions, where mindfulness collapses. We are in pain, so we pop some pills. We deal with the pain, but not the cause. We wish for insight to escape the pain of delusion, so we take drugs. Fine, whatever... but eventually we form resistance to the medication and have never found the cause. For instance, I get headaches when I do not hydrate. I might take some acetaminophen for the pain, but then also drink water. If you properly tend the conditions, there isn't a cause for drugs. Said differently, if you stabilize a meditation practice, the cause to seek insight through drugs simply vanishes... like abandoning crutches when you realize its easier to walk without them.
The heavy mindedness is startling, friends. Metta to all of us!
With warmth,
Matt
I think pain just has too many causes and variations to be included, as well as medications that are necessary to function. My son's brain is affected by his diabetes. He takes insulin to correct the problem but he still has highs and lows that affect his how brain functions. There is no fixing it. I had a knee injury that resulted in cartilage being removed from my knee. That is what causes the occasional pain and swelling. Yes, I can take medication to feel better, though it's rare it's bad enough to need meditation (advil in my case) but knowing what the cause is, in that case, does nothing whatsoever to alleviate the symptoms. There is nothing that can be done about the missing cartilage. I can only manage the symptoms as they occur. I do agree that we should try to figure out the causes when we can and manage the root cause rather than the symptoms. I think that goes a very long ways in taking proper care of our bodies and minds. But it's not always possible.
Although I didn't realize it at the time, it was helping to fuel my high blood pressure and giving me mini-migraines fairly frequently. When I retired, I quit caffeinated drinks, and -- although I know there are other factors that have played a role -- my mini-migraines are far less frequent and I have been able to reduce my primary blood pressure medication by 75%, and virtually never take my supplementary blood pressure medicine.
I'm not sure I'd include it under the Precepts, since I think the affect of caffeine on people is not what the Precept is talking about. But we would all be better off without so much caffeine.
(Actually, I avoid coffee because the caffeine is so high in it that my heart flutters and makes me sick to my stomach. Tea has much less caffeine in it and never affects me the same way.)
I can If sick, I will take medication that certainly could affect me in that way, but I use it temporarily until the illness has passed. And even then I try to avoid them if I can.
I've not done drugs, but I've been drunk a handful of times, and I did not find the experience pleasant (and I don't mean the hangover the next day either). I totally support the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
If you can't drive mindfully with mind-altering substances, I don't see how it can have much benefit in any activity within the context of Buddhist practice. Drugs haven't changed all that much since the year 600 BCE. Shakyamuni Buddha had good reason to list intoxication along with four other activities he deemed not beneficial for practice. It may have other benefits, but not within the context of Buddhist practice where mindfulness and concentration play such a vital role.
Without mindfulness, can we really call it practice? Sounds more like a break from practice to me. And if people want to take a break from practice, that choice belongs entirely to them. Why bother trying to make it compatible with Buddhist practice; why try to justify its use? Just do it, or don't.
Are you intimating that some mind altering substances are somehow not compatible with ones efforts to not fiddle with phenomena input?
I'm pretty sure Buddhism won't sully anyones noble path of drug intoxication unless they allow it to.
"Emily often uses psychedelics, and that's that's why I want her to babysit my infant daughter."
"Bill is a pothead, so he's the perfect English teacher I want for my son." (I actually have a story about that one).
"I think it's okay for the pilot of the 747 I'll be flying on to Hawaii to use amphetamines."
"I want my teenaged daughter to use ecstasy at her next party."
Insert drinking into any of those and we get the same message.
It's weird that you had one about weed because out of the drugs you mentioned, weed is the only one that nobody has ever died from overdosing on.
But the precepts are there for a reason. You are not required to take precepts to call yourself Buddhist. I drink a six-pack every week from grocery shopping. Sometimes I drink all six in one night, but then my supply is gone for the week. I don't think it makes much difference in my practice because I have so many psychiatric issues and meds I am on and those affect my wakefulness and joyful effort right off the bat. I still call myself a Buddhist.
So with lying we can all certainly remember a time lying for each of us. But that is not the BEST training rule of the mind. Not lying does not award you any kudos it just makes mind training easier. Many people actually prefer you tell them 'sweet little lies'. In my eyes it's a case of (both lying and drinking) a case of 'best practice' versus 'such as it is and good enough'.
Does this make sense?
1. you can still be a Buddhist without precepts
2. the precepts are there for a reason and you can benefit from them
3. despite not following the precepts you can still have an awesome awareness practice.
4. is that you could have a better practice without.
~Milerapa came to the conclusion that Marpa was not going to be able to further help his practice so he went it alone because he was desperate to become a Buddha due to having practiced black magic and killed family members. He succeeded in becoming a Buddha. Marpa said that Milarepa did the right thing for himself, but of course he claimed that if Milarepa had stayed with'm then he would have been enlightened sooner.
But your last sentence sort of made a point I'm trying to make obliquely. The arguments (even for weed) almost always center around the idea of it isn't any worse than _____. Not that it's good for you or a positive influence on American culture or __________.
For me, there is room for interpretation with those 3 pillars of Buddhism.
But, if you're going to simply ignore a primary pillar of Buddhism, then what's the point of saying you're Buddhist. You could still say that you follow many principles of Buddhism.
To me it would be about the same as saying, "I'm a Christian but I dismiss the Ten Commandments." I don't care if you say it...that's your choice...but what's the point?
I don't hold the five precepts with the Aryan eightfold path or the four Aryan truths. The latter are supremely advanced practices that we only have a taste as training rules. In terms of being training rules they would be equal to the precepts. But the Aryan right view is a very advanced realization.
So now assuming neither you nor I are of the Aryan view are you still so cautious about calling yourself a Buddhist? Since we are presumably not of the Aryan view the billions of Buddhists would have to be thousands.
A Buddhist is in the context of ahimsa. If the being benefits from calling themselves as such with greater faith then I sanction the use of 'Buddhist'. In the end when prajnaparamita is realized as in the diamond and heart sutra there is no 'ist' and no 'ism'..no beings no flowers no eye no path...
That last gives a flavor of the four noble truths. What is the cause of suffering if not holding onto an 'ism'...
By not holding onto an ism we also avoid taking it away from a being who is receiving nutrition from their new (or old) practice.
Well that's my 2 pennies. Excuse me if I said anything false or course.
But are we over-thinking this? We do a lot of that on this forum.
Depending on the amphetamines, maybe...I'd rather have them stay awake!
On the other hand having Buddhists promote perceptual breakages with psycho babble to make themselves feel better about their addictions is just as delusive.
Somewhere in between is the acceptance that we are no better or worse than anyone else and the manner in which we all try to address the difficulties with our respective addictions is really what the practice is..
.